13 Important Indian Courts Cases Decided Today [04-04-2018]

1. Dr. Kriti Lakhina v. State of Karnataka [Supreme Court of India]

Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) which was published on the website on 10.03.2018 to be invalid to the extent it disqualifies petitioners and similarly situated candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS Degree Courses from colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government Medical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-governmental institutions.

2. Binda Prasad v. State [Chattisgarh High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 304B - Dowry Death - There is no evidence on record as to demand of any dowry or deceased U was subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry "soon before her death" - There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation of dowry demand - In the absence of any evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry "soon before her death" by the accused, the conviction of the accused under Section 304B of IPC cannot be sustained.

3. NDMC Through: Education Officer v. Arya Dharam Seva Sangh [Delhi High Court]

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(b) - Eviction.

4. Mohamamd Shafi Mir v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Constitution of India - Article 22 (5) - Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 - Ss. 8(a) & 13 - It is an open and shut case of the deprivation of an inalienable right of the detenue, inasmuch as, he has not been informed that he can make a representation to the Detaining Authority till such time that the detention order is not approved by the Government. This permitted no option as it is a right guaranteed under article 22(5) and section 13 of the Act of 1978. It is incapable of being taken away and the failure, in providing this information to the detenue, has the effect of invalidating the order of detention.

5. Vishwanath Yadav v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Statutory Bail / Default Bail - Investigating officer failed to file a charge-sheet within a period of 90 days from the date the petitioner was taken in the judicial custody - petitioner moved an application for grant of bail in accordance with the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - the application filed by the petitioner was very much maintainable because it was filed on 91st day when the investigating officer failed to file charge-sheet by 90th day from the date of judicial custody - Rejection of the application holding it not maintainable without discussing the law on the subject in the light of the judicial pronouncements is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 

6. Narmada @ Guddu v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302/34, 304-B, 498-A -  Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - S. 4 - Dying Declaration - While recording the dying declaration, factors such as mental condition of the maker, alertness of mind and memory, evidentiary value etc. has been taken into account.

7. Nishant Khandelwal v. Lalit Bhardwaj [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonor of Cheque - Premature Complaint - filed before Notice Period - Can cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque in terms of Section 138.

8. Bristlecone India Ltd, Mumbai v. DCIT 2(1) [Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - deduction / exemption u/s 10A on account of profit generated by its Software Technology Park Unit [STP] situated at Bangalore - Manufacture of computer software or program was not an essential condition rather the CBDT notification covered wide spectrum of notified services which were eligible for deduction u/s 10A.

9. Ramkrishana Singh v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 341, 323, 379 & 504 - Quashing of Complaint - Malicious Prosecution - complaint has been filed after filing of the complaint case by the petitioner - the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

10. Ramashray Prasad Ram v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

Service Law - Departmental Proceedings - Quantum of Punishment - Domain of the Disciplinary Authority - Withholding 100% pension - Not Justified - Held, The order withholding 100% pension in the departmental proceeding relating to the memo of charge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do not justify such extreme punishment. The Court is conscious of the fact that under normal circumstances, the quantum of punishment being in the domain of the Disciplinary Authority, may not be interfered with, but in certain cases where the Court comes across orders of punishment which apparently reflect disproportionate exercise of power by the Disciplinary Authority, the Court cannot remain a mute spectator and is required to interfere.

11. Deepak Nagle v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Information Technology Act, 2000 - S. 66A - Penal Code, 1860 - S. 295A- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 438 - Grant of Anticipatory bail - Whatsapp Messege - Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs - Allegation against the applicant is that on the whatsapp he is a member of group namely Jai Bheem Jai Bharat and indulged in circulation of messages containing material which may outrage the religious feeling of non-SC/ST community criticizing the role of Swarn Varg and Hindu Gods and Goddess with intention to provoke members of SC/ST community for violence and revenge - Application allowed.

12. Ramji Rajput v. Madhay Pradesh Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

The court cannot entertain the petition only for the purpose of grant of interim relief.

13. Rajendra Prasad Gautam v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Labour Law - The regularization of other persons after termination of petitioner does not give any cause of action to the petitioner, nor it revives the cause of action which was available at the relevant time to the petitioner based on his oral termination - the petitioner has given a wrong declaration in the petition that there is no delay in filing the present petition - For these cumulative reasons, admission of present petition is declined. Petition is dismissed.